taxdome_get_jobTaxDome: One job with its tasks, stage, assignee and dates. Returns one job with its tasks and which are done, the stage, the assignee, the priority and the dates. Tasks are the steps of the job, so this shows what is blocking it. Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID from list_jobs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context on top: exactly what fields come back, that tasks carry their done-state, and the auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access to this app). It omits error/pagination behavior, so not a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The return-value content is front-loaded, but the first and second sentences substantially overlap ('tasks, stage, assignee and dates' restated as 'tasks... the stage, the assignee... the dates'), so one sentence is largely redundant. The auth note at the end is useful but slightly tacked on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents and even explains what tasks mean for interpreting blockers, plus the auth requirement. For a single-param read tool this is largely complete, though it could note behavior on a bad/missing job_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting 'Job ID from list_jobs.' The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for schema-carried parameters is correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('One job') and enumerates what it returns (tasks and completion state, stage, assignee, priority, dates), which is far beyond restating the name. It implies the single-vs-list distinction with list_jobs but never names that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'which are done... shows what is blocking it' framing implies the use case (checking job progress/blockers), and the schema's 'Job ID from list_jobs' hints at the list→get workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative tool is named for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.